Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« A cartoon week - Josh 361 | Main | Hiding your light »
Friday
Feb052016

Now what were those arguments against shale gas again?

Next week, the long-awaited public inquiry into Cuadrilla's planned shale gas developments in Lancashire kicks off. Witnesses from Cuadrilla will face off with representatives of green groups and protestors. Weeks of fun will ensue.

Readers at BH will no doubt be looking forwards to Friends of the Earth trying to convince m'learned friends that builder's sand is a dangerous carcinogen.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (105)

@Mark Hodgson: thank you for your contribution. The problem with greenies is that they systematically dissemble. Their claims are not objective evidence but deliberately falsified in many cases, e.g. Greenpeace claiming silica is carcinogenic when the slightly increased cancer risk following Silicosis is probably from increased susceptibility to real carcinogens. If silica were a significant carcinogen, beaches and deserts would be no-go areas!

As for the Climate Models, in 1976 a GISS team used Science fraud to justify incorrect radiative physics in another paper. Together these two papers form the incorrect, fake heart of IPCC pseudoscience. The proof that it was Science Fraud is that in year 2000, a member of the original modelling team, James Hansen, then Director of GISS, admitted the deception to an American Institute of Physics interviewer. All these facts are recorded in open literature.

Feb 7, 2016 at 6:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

Thanks for the 3 responses, gents (I assume gents, even if that is sexist). I don't disagree with any of you. And I certainly understand where jferguson is coming from. Aware of my scientific limitations, I hope I only ever comment on generalities, which I feel are within my paygrade (high though that might be, Dung!). If I ever stray into areas where I obviously don't understand the science or other complexities, please feel free to call me out. I won't be offended, and might even try to avoid dissembling ;-)

Feb 7, 2016 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark Hodgson,
thank you for your kind remarks. i once thought of writing on how much it was possible to accomplish with a 15 percent grasp of a thing, but decided that I must have been very very lucky not to be whacked by something in the remaining 85%. I suppose, if nothing else, i've gotten better at discerning who really does know what he/she is talking about. I'm sure you have, as well. cheers.

Feb 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterjferguson

Having done the odd frack job, I have to agree that frac sand is potentially dangerous.

So dangerous that we ought to treat it like nuclear waste.

Bury it deep beneath the ground in specially constructed wells.

Maybe even force it into the formation under pressure ...

Feb 7, 2016 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered Commenterkellydown

PC claims "the fracking process produces dust from the sand".
PC demonstrates an echo chamber understanding of fracking in his assertion.
Fracking takes place thousands of feet below ground.
Mixing the proppant into the fracking fluid (sand is a popular proppant) produces little if any dust.
Yes, it really is difficult to comprehend how such deliberate ignorance correlates to the level of extremism displayed by the true believer.
Yet here we have PC proving up the link in nearly every post.

Feb 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>